nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:First Chamber
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Category:ForumCategory:Congress The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of the Lovian Congress, the federal legislative branch. Unlike in other nations, the lower chamber serves as a room for debating and compromising, and the higher Second Chamber is where Members of the Congress vote bills that have passed through the First Chamber. All inhabitants are allowed entry to the Congress, though only Members of the Congress have the right to actively participate. Older proposals 006. State Elections According to the latest reform: * During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor. * During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident. Because the majority of the Lovians prefers October as election month, and a minority wants September, we could do it like this: * 20th September - 3rd October: Candidacies * 4th October - 17th October: Elections * 18th October: Inauguration of the Governors and Deputy Governors I'll ask Congress to vote on this proposal. But we also need to solve two more things before the candidacy period: # we need to settle the number of residences each citizen has. We need to count them and make sure nobody has more than legally allowed. # we need to register these residences in the "citizen book" so we know who can be a candidate in which state and who can vote in which state. This is very important. Martha Van Ghent 08:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :PRO!! You work very hard martha, i like that! Jon THE DUDE Johnson 09:05, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks :) Martha Van Ghent 09:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Support!!! --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::Very good. Your swift action as an MOTC is appreciated! 13:00, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::You have my support just as well. -- 14:21, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::For Martha's current bills all get s! Marcus Villanova WLP 16:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Got my support. 06:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Citizen residences count If we want this huge work to get done, we better start now. I'll list up all citizens and their residences. When I find citizens with more residences than allowed, I'll send a message to him. I will propose a bill to Congress to change the legal number of residence. I hope to do this before the counting really starts and all that. Please react fast. Martha Van Ghent 12:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC) 007. Amendment (Art.2): less legal residences Currently: * inhabitants have 1 residence * citizens can have 2 residences * MOTCs can have 3 * the King and the PM can have 4 This reflects a strange sort of hierarchy, and I don't like that. So this is what I propose: * inhabitants may have 1 residence in Lovia * citizens may have maximum 3 residences in Lovia There would be no difference between the King, the PM, the MOTCs or the citizens. In law, this would result in this Article 2 of the Const.: :Art. 2 :2. Every Lovian citizen has the right: ::1. To have a number of residences in Lovia, but no more than three. ::2. To participate in federal and state politics and to be a candidate in any Lovian election, unless he or she does not meet the requirements. Art. 2.3 and 2.4 are deleted then. Martha Van Ghent 12:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC) Comments Very good . I'd been planning to do this myself too, but you know... forgot about it, I suppose. I suggest you better move it to the 2nd Chamber fast then. 12:59, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :Yes; Martha Van Ghent 13:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::This would be a very good thing. We need to de-establish the hierarchical structures embedded in the law, inherited from our Libertan days. As a matter of fact, we needed this structure to make people want to become a politician. Nowadays in Lovia, we have politicians who want to be politicians for politics' sake. So, we may abandon this artifact. -- 14:24, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Walden srtikes again! Again very good martha! Marcus Villanova WLP 16:18, September 1, 2010 (UTC) 008. Census! Okay State Elections are coming up and we couldn't get a census law Passed so I think we extend the power of the Department of TL to count the census every December and August. So I would do the work! No One would have to do anything at all! It would just be me! I don't think this needs a law but just a formal agreement since I'm appointed. Thank You. Marcus Villanova WLP 23:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC) :Hey Marcus, check proposal 006., I already proposed to count all citizen residences, in order to know who can vote where. So, we just have to get the 007. bill passed and then we'll count in a hurry. Martha Van Ghent 05:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::True. 08:24, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Okay. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::I think this convo still isn't closed yet beacuse who will count the people. Even if you count them on page Citizen it doesn't matter beacuse you still need to know the forumula to counting people on page Wikination:Census. Marcus Villanova Walden 16:57, September 12, 2010 (UTC) 009. Full authority I noticed a possible future problem concerning the disappearing state level and the federal level. We are just in a beginning phase of constitutional evolution, and future authority problems might show up in cases which haven't been fully 'donated' to the congress by the law or constitution, so here is what i propose: # The state governors have full authority on state matters unless the competence has been given to congress by the constitution or the federal law. It's only a small phrase, but it might solve future problems. This might include that some states will hunt to find undistributed powers and competences so here's what I suggest concerning this accessory problem: # The competences which are appropriated by the states and the decisions which could be made due to this appropriation can be rolled back by the congress. ## Congress has to vote on these matters and can only roll back decisions following out of incorrect authority appropriation or subsidiarity. ## When the governor wishes not to agree with the decision of congress, the case has to be judged by the authority court. This court will control whether the congress had the power to destroy the state decision, checking the constitution and the federal law. This will of course mean that a judge court needs to be implemented, but it can be done easily, we can use the same judge of the State Court, or someone who has a greater knowledge of the laws in Lovia. Please read carefully and give comment fast, if this law must pass, it must be done before the state elections. P.S.: @Dimi, I'm very busy at this time, with my 'herexamens' so I'm unable to check where these phrases should be implemented, could you check it please, and if they need to be rewritten could you also do that. JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 11:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :It's an important issue you bring up here Johnson. But in fact, I already built in an "achterdeurtje" (backdoor) in the state reform. Article 5 of the Constitution now includes this phrase: ::"All competencies not covered by the states inhere to the federal level." :Which implies of course, that unless the competencies are explicitly given to the states (e.g. the naming of waterways), all the others belong to Congress. This is by far the most simple solution. It does not require the complex judgment of a Supreme Court Judge. Also, it is the more democratic solution - Congress being a representative institution, more than the Governorship. 14:39, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Correct, but I think that 'my solution' (it's a big word for a small issue :p) could mean a faster evolution of our law and constitution, meaning that we could renew our law every time some state comes up with a new competence of which the governor think's it might be in his hands, also what about competences not for seen in the law? Since everything not being in the law is authorized some smart asses (read Jon) could use that against the country :p JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::I think this is an interesting issue. I must look into this for sure! 16:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::Interesting indeed. Tough to use it against the country, though. BTW: The SC Judge may settle disputes between a state and the federal government. That would solve all abuse. 16:46, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::I think that's what i propose, in case of a problem in which we can't seem to agree, arthie has the power to solve it, if he wants to and if the law get's through of course JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 17:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::I guess the local level has been demolished? I feel more like a converbelt way is better, Local - State - Federal. I'd still like to see a law passed concerning Local Politics like, Every person living in an occupation is a member of that Town's Council, that can make or pass local laws.'' (Simple ones like Speed Limit Etc.) I'm never fond of State Councils Or State Senates but Local Councils gets everyone involved in politics, even if there voting on stupid things like Speed Limit or what to do about the Baer Population in the Town. In this case then the mayor/chairman could veto it...Etc. Also there's no law saying I can't Be Mayor of a town for 59 Years. I just don't have to hold elections and that's that, seems un-democratice right? Well if we have a City Council it Involes Eveyone and then they can decide term limits and how long a term is. Otherwise I don't mind this bill all too much but will probaly vote Absent. Marcus Villanova WLP 19:02, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I think you are missing the point, the state level still exists, where the local level doesn't. The state level will now revive, hence the elections, so problems can arise when a governor wishes to change something on the state level, but has to ask permission to people who aren't aware of the situation. If this decision is against the law or the subsidiary-beginning the congress is given the power to roll back. This is necessary for an evolution of or constitution and our law. JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 20:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::That totally sucks, doesn't it? I don't think you found the point of my rebuddle, which is to keep the Local Level, strong and Local so that it doesn't get much power. Now the state Level is too strong!? As I said the people involed with local politics would stay local. Again I vote Absent on this!Marcus Villanova WLP 20:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC) You still don't get it i think, but never mind, a last try: Local level doesn't exist and that needs to stay so (i know it exists but it has no power, it's more of an honor actually). The state level however exists, and since a short time this level is starting to disappear, trying to unite power on top. In October state elections will be held, so the state level will become more and more attractive and popular. The current laws give all power to the congress (read: power on unmentioned competences). Now i think that this needs to be changed, i want to give all unmentioned competences to the state, this way this level can mean an evolution to the state. Because sometimes laws (or something smaller, something like a state regulation) can really boost a state, now this can cause problems like taking competences that harm the state, here congress can vote to roll back. it's been well taught over! I hope you see what i mean we need your vote. JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 22:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :The influence of Belgian political methods seems to stretch far these days: they can't compose a government in the Netherlands, Lovia keeps state reforming, ... Serious now: I prefer a strong, centralized state that is democratic and transparent. In Lovia we do however hold a certain 'inheritance' with our states and local levels. Those two lower levels have become combined in the last reform, which means the states are as local as actual policy gets. It is on that level we need to 'get people involved'. Isn't that what both of you say? 11:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I think so, is that a pro or a contra? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 13:55, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::@Jon - Oh well yeah i kinda knew that it doesn't exist but, I love local politics. Sorry for the confusion. I'm still thinking over the bill that was proposed. Marcus Villanova WLP 15:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::I tend to support it. It may need some rewriting but it gives more liberty to regional communities. In a way it can make the states become local politics, or is it the other way round? Harold Freeman 15:18, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Honestly, It raises State power to about where state level should be at. And Totaly demolishes Local politics. Marcus Villanova WLP 15:26, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::It doesn't demolish the local level, with or without this law the local level doesn't exist, and i can't change that, but this law brings politics to the people, like harold says, this could be seen as the new local level, thanks harold JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:46, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::Still. I want a local level, it occurs to me that our argument really doesn't matter. I will Vote on this bill! But again letting people know, anyway I still think we should have an active Local level, like I said it gets everyone involved! Marcus Villanova WLP 15:52, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Thanks man, maybe we ougt to write local politics together, something that allows the local politics, in a way that doesn't make things complex, what do you think? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:59, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I support this bill too. Local levels could be organized by making community pressure groups like 'people united for a Noble City forest'. Harold Freeman 15:58, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::There is already that like HEMPPAC, NPP, LMFPAC I mean like an orginized local government. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:03, September 4, 2010 (UTC) Practically impossible It's practically impossible, Jon. Take taxes, as an example: there are no federal taxes. So, according to you, a Governor could tax anything he wants. That's no big deal is it? But he could tax products from other states. Tax differences would cause companies to move around; states to lose income; people to lose jobs. Which fucked-up socialist comes up with an idea like that? Holy ----! Centralize, please! This is getting way too Belgian. 16:04, September 4, 2010 (UTC) : Agreed, we were writing some stuff in, I think Jon's sandpit and Percival's sidepages. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:07, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::You mean like cold civil war? Harold Freeman 16:08, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Exactly. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:09, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::It was of course just an example. Every hole in the law would become a chance for five different governors to do as they like, without the consultation of the people. A judge can settle differences? Fine. Arthur, you better get working. Where did the "simplify" go? This is making Lovia '''less democratic and less transparant'. If you want the people to get in touch with politics and law, we must make it simple and not obscure! 16:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::No need to shout my friend: who raises his voice over the clouds wont be able to see it anymore. I understand the point you are making here, it is a good point.Harold Freeman 16:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::I simply agree, I think that Govenors should decide taxes, but since we don't have local state ppolitics things could go undemocratic. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:20, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::We have thought about democratic state level. Problem is we don't have the politicians. With only ten to fifteen active citizens, we cannot fill five+one parliaments. That's why we decided to make the state level the new "local level", giving them town and city powers. The actual state powers, that required a democratic approach, were given Congress. 16:23, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::A good proposal is one that is talked about so this one qualifies. I must however admit the kings sounds like he knows. Harold Freeman 16:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Maybe Five Members per state? I mean that could work right? That wouldn't be as active as Congress so it would be okay? Right? Marcus Villanova WLP 16:29, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Marcus: we only have 15 active editors. Therefore, some people would be in several assemblies. Then why not just assemble together, as we do now? 16:32, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I'm gonna look at every town and city to see, it might take 10 - 15 mins. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:42, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Thanks king for your shouting here, but hey, i don't like it this way neither, we are in a stadium of complete paralyze, states can't move, everything has to be seen by a congress that mostly doesn't decide on such things, Marcus tried to implement a census, something witch could be a perfect state competence, but whatever Marcus tried, nobody was listening or helping (I know that encapsulates me too) but I really think we have two options here, or we quit installing the state elections (due to hallow level, because what are the city and town right?) Or we should start thinking to implement a legal way of introducing the states without starting a secession war! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 18:38, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Wait what are you taking about State Secession? I don't that's gonna happen right? Marcus Villanova WLP 18:44, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Of course not, but the king is afraid, that my solution would be a way to do so, or at least a way to use the law against the country JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 18:50, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::I don't see that happening. Marcus Villanova WLP 18:51, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::Me neither JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 19:03, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::The king is aware that a system like the one you propose will complicate several mechanisms, and will not solve problems that cannot be solved now. 15:26, September 5, 2010 (UTC) 010/11/12. The Civil Law on family matters I have a series of three proposals that I would like to ad to the Federal Law. There is one on marriage and divorce, one on legal cohabiting and one on parenthood. To make things not too difficult I will only write a short description here, the full texts can be found here. * Marriage Act: A law concerning the duties of married people, the conditions and procedure to marry and the provisions to terminate a marriage. * Legal Cohabiting Act: A law that makes it possible to live together without being married. * Parenthood Act: Determining the relationship between child and parents. I know this isn't a priority but it would be nice to have married Lovians etc. Please comment. 09:07, September 5, 2010 (UTC) : Yes I love it! As I wrote in your sandpit. It makes Lovia a real country, with real laws and such. Marcus Villanova WLP 14:17, September 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Is it okay if I check 'em Wednesday? I'm sorta occupied until then. 15:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC) :::It's a pretty good bill that makes us a real country! Marcus Villanova WLP 15:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yuri is really good at this . I think we can be happy with such a good PM. 15:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::I'm looking into social security and criminal law for the moment but it might require some rearranging within the Federal Law. 05:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I have some problems with the second proposal. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:25, September 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Only the second? Then I did a great job. 09:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Ha, good! Marcus Villanova WLP 14:26, September 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Lol! 15:50, September 7, 2010 (UTC) 013. Newport = a what? We voted a bill on the recognition of existing localities. Newport has never been a full neighborhood, but does have a page, a map and even an inhabitant (Marcus). Could we perhaps make it a Hurbanova hamlet? Seems like the best solution to me. 17:04, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :The town was already there and looked small and in touch with nature. IDK why it's a niegboorhood it should be a hamlet of Hurbanova tho. Marcus Villanova Walden 17:05, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes indeed. 17:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::No, it's a neighborhood. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:46, September 7, 2010 (UTC) Proposal to recognize Newport as a HU hamlet Please comment. It's rather urgent! This has to go to 2nd Chamber in a hurry. 17:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC) : Go put it to the second chamber no one really would disagree! Go! The Newport Mayor says Pro! Marcus Villanova Walden 17:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::BTW Marcus: there are no more Mayors/Chairmen. 17:13, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::It still on every page though, want me to delete that? Marcus Villanova Walden 17:17, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::You may :) I'll do it too when I still see it :) 17:20, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::kk. That's the project of the day. Marcus Villanova Walden 17:23, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::Eh... Newport is a neighborhood of Hurbanova... It lies directly next to Drake Town.. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:46, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::Yeah but Hurbanova isn't a City right? Newport is too small and should be a Hamlet. Marcus Villanova Walden 17:47, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::So what? Newport is the fourth neighborhood, not the fifth. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:48, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::According to page Hurbanova it is only Neighboorhoods are Millstreet, Drake Town, and Downtown Hurbanova and East Hills is a Hamlet belogining to it. Nothing about Newport. Marcus Villanova Walden 17:53, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::That's because three neighborhoods have been deleted in the past and Newport was restored recently. Pages like Drake Town in the infobox: Next to Downtown Hurbanova, Millstreet, Newport. See in the history of the page: http://nation.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hurbanova&oldid=32719#Town_map. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:56, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::So newport, Muza and what was the third? I see but it now isn't and that totally sucks but it should be a hamlet of HU. Marcus Villanova Walden 18:00, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::No, downtown, Millstreet, Drake Town and Newport. Well, why should an area of three houses which is built adjacent to another town be a hamlet, while there is no real difference (of administrational kind) instead of the name neighborhood/hamlet if the state changes? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:03, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I guess well see how this plays out, but for now it's 2:00 and lunch time. I'll be on later. Marcus Villanova Walden 18:05, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Ok :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:06, September 7, 2010 (UTC) Dimi, is there any difference of function between a neighborhood an a hamlet? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:06, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :Just read the federal law. There doesn't seem to be any difference in government etc. So I don't care whether it's a hamlet or a neighborhood. :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Barely. Anyway, I was wrong and thought the limit was four :). The problem sort of remains: Newport wasn't "recognized" by Congress as a neighborhood last week. So I propose we now recognize it. Anyone in favor? 18:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::As a neighborhood or a hamlet? Anyway, if it's really important for Marcus to be a hamlet, I don't care, though I don't think there is any difference, so what his reasons are I really don't know... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:43, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::I don't care I thought it was you that cared? No well then this discusson was pointless ! I don't care I i like the sound of hamlet only beacuse I like the Play and sounds more quaint. If it's a neighboorhood cool! Marcus Villanova Walden 19:57, September 7, 2010 (UTC) 014. Problem with deputies Well, the problem is that if a governor quits the deputy governor automatically replaces the role of the governor. At first that doesn't seem to be a problem, but the law is missing a vital phrase according to me. What to do when both the governor AND the deputy governor are absent or not willing to take the job? We can't force people, so we could say the candidate on the third place of the elections (not very practical) or hold new elections (like we did previously in f.e. Oceana when Ben replaced me, he's still in office btw..) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:35, September 25, 2010 (UTC) :I like! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC) ::New speedy elections for that particular state seem the best solution to me, especially when some time passed since the previous one. 09:02, September 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah I thought so. Anyone a nice phrase for in the law? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:37, September 25, 2010 (UTC) :::As they do in New York state is: Govenor - Deputy - Elections! We should reprhase it so that if the deputy is also missing special elections should be held. Marcus Villanova 13:05, September 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::we could indeed add a sentence to get special elections. i don't think it's urgent, as i cannot imagine both the gov and the dep to resign within 6 (!) months. 06:55, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::I can, 'cause it happened before that two elected governors for one state (Oceana) became inactive within six months. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:22, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::true, things can happen! Special elections should be the case. Marcus Villanova 19:17, September 28, 2010 (UTC) Possible added phrase "If both Governor and Deputy Governor are unable to take the role or resign in the role governor. Special elections should be organized in the following week to elect a new Governor and deputy governor." I doubt it's good? But I am I on the right track? Marcus Villanova 19:20, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :Sounds OK, I think :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :IDK? I'm looking for reactions! Marcus Villanova 20:34, September 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, only the last part could be "new Governor and/or deputy governor". --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Hello other congress men...Hello! Wake up smell the eggs and bacon! So any with the changes it's ::"If both Govenor and Deputy Govenor are unable to take the role or resign in the role of Govenor, Special elections should be orginized in the following week to elect a new Governor and/or deputy govenor." ::Any objections? Marcus Villanova 20:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC) What if there's a tie? That's another thing. If there's a tie for Govenor or Deputy should it be know to hold special elections? Any Ideas? Marcus Villanova 20:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :Pfff.. You could say (if there's a third candidate) that those who voted for another candidate should reconsider their votes, prolong the elections or perhaps someone is willing to give up. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :I guess but either way seems bad. Marcus Villanova 15:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Please we need input on this! Marcus Villanova 22:47, October 15, 2010 (UTC) 015. Forbidding low pants in public I just read the "schoolgids" (guide of my local high school Lyceum Schöndeln in the City Roermond, formerly known as RK BC Schöndeln) and I've found something inspirational. I'll cite page 30: "en wij wensen ook niet met eigen ogen te kunnen vaststellen welke kleur en motief het ondergoed van uw kind heeft." Translation: and we also wish not to be able to determine which color or pattern the underwear your child is wearing has. This so-called "lagebroekenverbod" (low pants prohibition) could also be introduced in the public areas of Lovia. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:21, September 28, 2010 (UTC) : Uhhhh simply no beacuse I am a Low pants wearer...so and Marcus Villanova 20:35, September 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, I can imagine that some people might think it's inappropriate. According to the schoolgids ".. deze wekken erotische gevoelens op .." Translation: these excite erotic feelings. :P Because the signature action hasn't quite worked out to stop this rule, they are now trying to also forbid headscarves. Won't be a problem I guess :P In Limburg hardly anyone votes and those who vote vote for the PVV of Geert Wilders (Limburg is the lowest and most right province on the map) :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:11, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :This sounds like a great proposal. Indeed it is indecent and we do not want the girls to excite the boys to much (during school hours) they may find it hard to concentrate ans study less hard? BastardRoyale 09:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC) Ehm, it is mostly the other way around: boys looking at girls. And we don't want bored pupils, do we? SjorskingmaWikistad 13:37, September 29, 2010 (UTC) : Again . Srry. Marcus Villanova 20:07, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :: the Low Pants prohibition SjorskingmaWikistad 20:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::It looks like this one is going to have a major support in congress :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:48, September 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::Interesting topic ;). 13:56, September 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::I mean this is like saying "No green striped turtle necks on Thurasdays in April when it is 56F, and raining." ;]Marcus Villanova 19:30, September 30, 2010 (UTC) Talking about forbidding low pants... SjorskingmaWikistad 15:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Then I also have the argument "national safety". --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Say what? Safety? If your talking about gangs I know all about them. Not that i'm in one, I'm dead scared of them, but one day I lost the remote and watched 20 hours of a show called Gangland ''on History Channel and learned about Hispanic, Nazi, Crips n' blodss, Devils, Motocyle gangs and Liberal gangs, ANYTHING CRIME and crap. (Yeah I didn't know they exisisted). Getting to my point, what OWTB might be talking about is low pants are able to hide guns and show underpants colors to show gang affiliation (Like if you have red boxers it means you might be in the bloods, Blue-crips, etc.). Also some gangs have chains attched to there pockets to choke people having them lower makes it easier. But then again that is america were lovia so I think crime rate are low. Marcus Villanova 22:55, October 15, 2010 (UTC) :::That made me LOL; 'show underpants colors to show gang affiliation'? Apparently, however, the fashion based on the fact that convicts in American prisons used to be refused belts; do we really want our children basing their fashions on convicts'? --Semyon 12:29, October 16, 2010 (UTC) 016. Lovian Dollar There have been many concepts for a Lovian Dollar (first by Yuri, then by Dimitri and then by Horton11). Of course all inspired on the Oceana korune ;) I think it's time to put the damn thing to work, 'cause there's a lot support for it. To enlarge our independence from the US we really need our own coins (I think our communists will also like to see our own currency). Therefore I ask everyone with ideas for designs to post them here and those having knowledge of economics might also have some remarks. Come on people, we can do this! --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:07, October 8, 2010 (UTC) : Such coins should have figureheads like all the dead Kings (you never put live people on money) Maybe the lovian pine? Also Should we have Paper money...yes also only silver coins...gold and copper are way to expensive to make...In america it take 10cents to make a one cent copper coin...that's just stupid! Marcus Villanova 20:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::Actually Queen Beatrix is on the Dutch euros and she still lives (sort of :P) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::I actually read about that how ironic! And I never knew you even had a monarch!?!?! Marcus Villanova 22:57, October 15, 2010 (UTC) : Would be a great idea, coins with all the kings on them and perhaps a historic building? Also: paper money. Dr. Magnus 20:51, October 8, 2010 (UTC) : The making of a new monetary system would require a much stronger banking system in this nation, and think of the economic chaos that would follow; it would be an unnecessary change. Lovia is perfectly stable economically, and being pinned to the US Dollar is a good thing. If a Lovian Dollar would made, it would quickly free-fall into worthlessness this global economy. We need to stay with what we know will not sink; play it safe. Edward Hannis 23:55, October 8, 2010 (UTC) : I made this on Llamadawiki: http://www.llamadawiki.nl/wiki/Yor%C3%ADssische_Ser%C3%BA, including the pictures. SjorskingmaWikistad 06:49, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Sjors, I know the coins you already invented. You seem to have some considerable skills with this. Would you be able to, say, make a coin with one of the monarchs on them? For example, take a pic of our Queen Lucy from the site and make a coin or a bill from it. If you make an example, or a prototype, could you add it here? Dr. Magnus 07:27, October 9, 2010 (UTC) Anyway, why are you guys voting in the first chamber? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Probably because they wanna see how much support they can expect when they take it the second. Dr. Magnus 08:07, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::I always advocated for an own coin so this got my support! 09:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm rather contra! The coin now is weak we should depreciate our coin, or we will get uncompetitive, and certainly since we are situated close to the us, it will mean a weak economy JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:39, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::Nonsense. Lovia has a lot to offer, especially on the area of green energy and other pro-environment stuff. Lovia is a beautiful place to invest. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:11, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Agreed. Why all the negativity, Johnson? Dr. Magnus 14:17, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Yes plenty of resourse for a small country, people will see the great opportunity and invest. Marcus Villanova 15:40, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 017. Federal Bureau of Economics and Statistics I would be glad to start up a federal bureau of economics and statistics, this bureau would arrange some counting stuff, and would be able to give us info on GNP and others. The bureau would be a part of the DEP IAT, feedback? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Sounds okay to me :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:11, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeay! As long as we don't do like the Flemish government: thousands of data collected without turning them into policy, collecting the same data twice etc. But I have full trust in you Jon! 14:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Speaking of belgium I saw they beat a team for quailifying in 2012 UFEA. anyway Also we need a good system like this! Marcus Villanova 15:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Thanks, you guys! You all rock! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 16:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC) 018. Foreign aid policy I think it is time to reward the LEDC's of present day world with foreign aid, since we are enjoying prosperity, and their inhabitants struggle for a living. I think we should estabilish a special agency of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which has the duty of assigning parts of the total budget to LEDC's. Most important is that we decide on which part we will spend money. Structural aid, given to education would be best in my opinion. SjorskingmaWikistad 15:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Lets first settle the currency issue, shall we? Also: we may be a prosperous nation in general, but we still have some poor folk. We still have not equally divided the incomes of our people. As a communist, '''that' should be your priority. Dr. Magnus 15:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::The poor folk issue is nonsense. Compared to Angola, Sri Lankha or Peru our poor masses are prosperous elite members. You have too see it in perspective. We are not isolationists. Hence, we should provide the LEDC's with a strong economy like ours, by setting up large-scale development projects. To create world equality, not national equality. SjorskingmaWikistad 15:38, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::We should first try to establish national equality. The next step would be to unite all nations in a communist\socialist coalition in which everybody is equal. Then the world turns red and there is no more poverty. Dr. Magnus 15:44, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::No, I'm contra. People should make the decision themselves whether they give aid to foreign countries. At the moment foreign aid doesn't work, for the Haiti earthquake a lot of the donated money did not arrive in Haiti and that's not helping the people here nor the people over there. Better set up a national fund. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::First fight corruption in those backwards foreign nations. Boycott their governments if they are corrupt or unlawful. Only then aid is an option. We cannot expect to spend our taxpayers hard earned money on funding the private yet of Mugabe for example. Dr. Magnus 15:48, October 9, 2010 (UTC) @Magnus, after EC, Wishful thinking. Before America turns left, they first need to turn right in order to see the evil that is indissoluble to nationalism and other rightist streams. @OWTB, that was what I was talking about. SjorskingmaWikistad 15:49, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::true and who proposed this? Also Yuri has already passed some great legislature that helps the poor and is in the process of drawing up some legislature that would make minumum wage 14.00$ and give an employee like a mandatory two weeks off. Marcus Villanova 15:51, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm still working on that legislation. About the foreign aid thing: I'd rather have the 'big three' reformed (IMF, WTO and the World Bank) since nowadays they blackmail nations into opening up their markets. Of course Lovia can't take such an initiative so I support a foreign aid program. @Pierius: Communism always claimed to be an international movement, uniting people regardless of their nationality. 07:02, October 10, 2010 (UTC) 019. death Penalty sould Lovia reinstate hanging for rape and murder--Owen1983 01:33, October 16, 2010 (UTC) : Life in prison is a worse punishment than death, and anyhow, there are a ton of reasons against the death Penalty. I say nay. Edward Hannis 02:11, October 16, 2010 (UTC) It saves money. Any idea how expensive it is to keep someone locked up for life? And I think it should be given for: *Pedophiles *Rapists *Infanticide *High treason But only if there is zero doubt. Dr. Magnus 08:43, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :I agree with Edward here; death penalty does make crime rates drop but it is the one thing I am against out of principle. 09:23, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Contra! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:00, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :How about honour killing? If anyone ever does harm to a member of your family you may inflict the same harm upon him, thus setting the record straight and prevent the bastard from harming society any longer. Hammurabi's and eye for an eye. Dr. Magnus 10:05, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Magnus, how did you ever dare to call yourself a communist? The very few cases of honor killing in Lovia will be resolved by court, the sentence being imprisonment. 10:07, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :::Still CONTRA! killing doesn't solve a thing! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Fail to detect the smiley, Yuri? I am in favour of life imprisonment instead of death penalty for example for: *Pedophiles *Rapists *Infanticide *High treason However, life imprisonment is expensive so: *Inmates will do forced labour to pay back to society *Inmates will have hard beds, no television and no luxery whatsoever *Inmates will be fed simple food and share small cells Prisons have to be sober, and generate more money then they cost the taxpayer. Sentences should be long. Life in prison should mean life in prison, not 30 years with change of parole. Dr. Magnus 10:13, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :::I don't think rapists should have a Playstation in their cells but I don't agree with a hard line in general either. Rehabilitation should always be the goal. Useful labor can be part of that rehabilitation but 'hard beds, bread and water' not. 10:19, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::(Maybe I may not speak here but rehabilitation is a politicians word :p) Olaf Engelund 10:28, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::The logic behind the hardline is easy: if the murderer of your wife, the rapist of your daughter, would get away with a lousy sentence of ten or fifteen years because he is rehabilitated, would you not be compelled to take justice into your own hands? I know I would. By punishing the pigs and swines who commit the atrocities in a very hard way the relatives of victims will not have the need to take matters into their own hands. Rehabilitation should not be the main goal, punishment should be. Dr. Magnus 10:31, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::::And yes, Olaf, you may speak and I have to say I agree with you. Dr. Magnus 10:34, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::::NO death! I think if you are fasley prosacusted and are killed but then they find eveidence otherwise what would you do? Marcus Villanova 15:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::::It would look bad for us, too. We would be one of the few industrialized nations to have the death penalty, along with the US and China. Plus, think about all the potential problems. *Wrongly convicted cases. There is never zero doubt. There have been many cases of people killed on a false accusation. Death penalty runs the risk. *Hummarabi's eye for eye, tooth for tooth is feeble logic for a modern society. *Life in prison is a far worse punishment than the death penalty (longer punishment, same end result). *Life in prison can generate more money through prison labor. :::::::Isn't that reason enough? Edward Hannis 18:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::you're right edward. Death penalty is cruel and unneeded. 10:47, October 18, 2010 (UTC) 020. Novosevensk Novosevensk now has eight inhabitants, so according to the census calculations a population of 1068. Therefore, it needs to be either upgraded to a town, or have part of the population relocated. According to the reform plan, this decision needs to be made by Congress, so please decide. --Semyon 08:56, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :I'd make it a town since I like to stay there. 08:57, October 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Let's make it a town :p JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 09:01, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :Make it a town; it's a nice place and deserves it. Dr. Magnus 09:12, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah I love Novo! Marcus Villanova 16:14, October 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Move to the Second Chamber then? Probably an MOTC should do it. --Semyon 12:24, October 20, 2010 (UTC) 021. State election procedures I regret having agreed with OWTB about retaining the concept of states. In retrospect, it was a big mistake. Not only did it lead to polarization and constant claims of election fraud, states are practically useless. Face it. Now, from my point of view, there are two options. We can either choose to re-work the state election legislation, so we won't have this bloody fighting in March and April. Or we can abolish states as a level of policy-making; and thus centralize all power within CONGRESS, not with the PM or me. Considering the lack of support of total centralization (I suppose), I would like to discuss possible reforms of the election procedures. * First of all, we should reconsider the voting ballots. Currently, a GOV and a DEP are elected separately. What does this result in? If we have 3 candidates, the candidate with the least votes will retreat (as we have seen in Kings, Sylvania and now Oceana), and his votes will be passed on to another candidate. So, the "most popular candidate" takes the state and his opponent becomes Deputy. In Oceana, it really looks like war. *: What I propose we do (by the next elections, of course), is change the ballots: candidates must participate two by two. I think (personally) that this would be a good thing. It would indeed strengthen parties, which I have always opposed, but it would at least avoid personal warfare. * By the next elections, we must let all citizen SUBSCRIBE before voting. Now, people move, people become citizens in between etc. You all have called it "fraud", and in a way, it is. We must abolish this in the future. * We need an election moderator, and it should be someone else than me. * We need to shorten the voting period. It seems to be leading to crazy frenzies and vote-changing. 15:43, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :Pro Pro Pro, these are all things that our party suggested in the beginning, but we haven't pushed them through, a mistake of ours! But these changes are needed! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 16:12, October 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Good. 16:13, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :: for mainly the combined Dep and Gov! Marcus Villanova 16:16, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :::Pro, though I would not shorten the voting period since all other measures are already stabilizing enough. Also do note that the legislation should allow two people of different parties to run together. 12:45, October 20, 2010 (UTC) I'm pro all, though I doubt about the combining thing. Let me think it over. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:46, October 20, 2010 (UTC) :Same as Mr Ilava. I do support the idea in general. I also think that double ballots would indeed lower the risk of "open war" as we might have experienced in the latest elections. On the other hand, it would increase the power of parties. But then, on the other hand... Take this hypothetical example: Van Ghent and the King would have sided together, and they would have won Sylvania by a large margin, would they not? The same could have applied to, say, Mr Ilava and his "partner", perhaps Mr Latin. More than increasing party power, it would increase the strength of good duos. That sounds like a sound idea! -- 15:32, October 20, 2010 (UTC) ::I think the Gov and the Deputy should be elected seperately because then you would get some pluralism in the governing of the state. F.e. in Oceana we now have Walden and the CCPL. Two very different parties which surely can bring a moderate policy, which is best, because if you would have Walden won with such a small margin it would surely only worsen the feelings of the conservatives. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:59, October 21, 2010 (UTC) :::i get what you're referring to, but there's no such thing as "co-government" with the Deputy. the law clearly reads that the Deputy has no inherent executive power. 14:25, October 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::Indeed and I know, but the Gov should get advise from the Dep and that advise would be more worth when coming from a different point of view (someone from a different party), 'cause then it's "ongezoute kritiek" (does somebody know a good English translation for this one?) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:00, October 22, 2010 (UTC) ::::: I believe the standard expression in English is 'unvarnished opinion'. 10:29, October 23, 2010 (UTC) For the good order... This is not a proposal but just a general comment. I've noticed that our MOTC deliver well-funded and very important commentaries on proposals but, to speak frankly, there is one thing I really can't like: those comments are given in the second chamber. I would like to ask all MOTC to read proposals and write amendments when they are in the first chamber. Thanks and please try to pay attention in the future. 16:52, October 21, 2010 (UTC) :I agree. On the other hand, to those who move proposals to the 2nd Chamber: make sure you have that majority before moving it. 18:18, October 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Again true. I leave bills in here for a month if you don't read it it's your own fault. Marcus Villanova 22:23, October 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, I made this comments in the light of my 'family law trio'. The remarks are all okay but a little late since the proposals have been open for comments over two months now. 08:00, October 22, 2010 (UTC) .022 Tobacco Law I know this isn't major and since I saw it in Fed Law today I saw somthing Wrong on section four: #The term "tobacco" is used for an agricultural product processed from the fresh leaves of plants in the genus Nicotiana. Under "using tobacco" the Lovian government understands: smoking tobacco in the form of cigarettes or cigars, using it in smoking pipes and water pipes, or consuming it in the form of snuff tobacco or chewing tobacco. #The use of tobacco is forbidden by the Tobacco Regulations Act of the Federal Law, supported by Congress: ##In all governmental buildings, including federal properties, state properties and properties of the city, town, neighborhood, or hamlet. ##For all persons aged under 18 years. ##In the close environment of persons aged under 12 years. ##In the close environment of persons aged older than 12 years and under 18 years, unless permission is given by the minor. #The use of tobacco is discouraged by the Congress, in all public places, especially those where people consume food and beverages, meaning there is no strict prohibition on the use. #Every Lovian person, company, or organization who owns or manages a building, room, or public place has the right to prohibit the use of tobacco within that space, supported by Local Police authorities in case of disobedience. Basicly It says Local Police. Which is wrong so I think that should be Federal Police right? Agreed? Okay just ponting that out. Marcus Villanova 13:47, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Should be changed yeah. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:01, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah just wanted to point that out, i'll leave it hear for a day or two, again nothing major. Marcus Villanova 17:28, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::I do agree that we should minimize, if not abolish, the Local Polices. We're small enough to have a single police force. Edward Hannis 18:20, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :::I thought it was already abolished. I think we just forgot to change this one. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:43, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :::So we change just change it right no vote? Marcus Villanova 00:06, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think so. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:39, October 27, 2010 (UTC) Secretary Reform Amendment I propose that the following be added to the Constitution in the form of an amendment. ---- #Certain realms of concern in Lovia are to be administrated by Departments. #The creation, merging, or disbanding of any Department is to be proposed by the Prime Minister, and must be approved by majority vote in the Second Chamber of Congress. #Each Department is to have a Department head, under the title of Secretary. ##A Secretary may be appointed by the Prime Minister. ##A Secretary is to be removed from office if any of the following occur: ###The Secretary resigns, ###The Secretary is forcibly removed from office by ####The Prime Minister ####A majority of Congress, ###The Secretary does not contribute to its Department for over 2 months, unless an Interim Secretary is named. ####For an Interim Secretary to be named, he/she must be accepted by at least two of the following: #####The Prime Minister #####The Secretary #####A majority of Congress. ####An Interim Secretary may not be in office for any more than four months. ####An Interim Secretary may be replaced by the Prime Minister during the Interim's time in office. ####If the Secretary does not accept his/her position and meet criteria after his/her re-entering into office, then he/she must resign and be replaced. ---- It might seem complicated, but it's overdue. The Constitution refers to Secretaries, but never officially describes them. That's a problem. The rules may seem a little complicated, but I think it helps both Secretaries and Prime Ministers, by assuring that Secretaries have to help out in their realm of importance, and that Prime Ministers and Congress can enforce on this law effectively. However, the inclusion of an Interim allows Secretaries to take a break, should that be needed. Edward Hannis 20:50, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Very much pro!!!!! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 21:41, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, it looks okay, but I have an objection: "The Secretary does not contribute to its Department for over 2 months, unless an Interim Secretary is named." At the moment the departments are not really used, we simply have too little problems on a small scale. Most departments aren't really in use for several months. Actually I don't really see why we still have them... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:46, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :::# See OWTB's argument: we have secretaries for the 'order of things' but they are not really needed. I don't see why we should fire someone if he/she doesn't do anything when that isn't needed either. :::# Currently the composition of the government is made by the PM and approved by Congress. I'd keep that need for ratification by Congress. :::# Don't give the PM the power to fire a secretary without Congressional approval. Power should reside with Congress, I don't want the PM to become 'presidentificated'. :::I do agree we might apply some changes to the system/usage of the secretaries, but not in this form. 09:30, October 26, 2010 (UTC) :::Secretaries give congressman things to do, nothing more nothing less. Marcus Villanova 20:27, October 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Sounds like I totally missed an obvious solution: the abolishment of Departments. Undoubtedly, a general cooperation is more effective. Secretaries are useless. Edward Hannis 00:02, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ::If you simplfy to much and limit the size of government them you can't do anything. Marcus Villanova 00:05, October 27, 2010 (UTC) :::I think that the problem with Secretaries is that a) they're not really necessary, and b) it implies that that person has sole authority over a certain area. If you're not the Secretary of Transportation, then you're not likely to be editing too much about making McCandless's planned highways. Secretaries don't have a clear purpose or authority. Edward Hannis 01:16, October 27, 2010 (UTC) 023. Establishment of a Central Bank in Lovia I would like to propose the establishment of a National Bank of Lovia to help regulate Lovia's economy and eventually introduce a National Currency. I have put up 3 proposals that can be used. 1. Use my Bank of Lovia (and fix it up) as Lovia's National Bank 2. Use the Aventis National Bank, nationalize it ( fix it up) and make it the National Bank 3. Use some parts of the Bank of Lovia (the bank fuctions, the seal, etc.) and combine it with existing Aventis resources. I personally think option 3 is the best since it can use the the existing Aventis things and also my proposed functions in the national bank to convert it into a true Central Bank. Horton11 14:31, October 27, 2010 (UTC) : Pfffff...Aventis should be nationalized with all it's other branches. I like the world regulate.Very progressive. Marcus Villanova 14:39, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ::What about this: installing a new bank? It would make things easier JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:30, October 27, 2010 (UTC) :::If Yuri agrees we could take Aventis, cause it already has banks in practically all major places of Lovia. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:41, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::So, kbc has banks everywhere: De Nationale Bank van Belgie doesn't JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:44, October 27, 2010 (UTC)